Faster than the speed of light

After a weekend of great rugby (from the Welsh, the English and Australians were rather blah), I have responded to a good question posted over at The Conversation on distances in the Universe. It's a question that gets raised quite a bit and basically put it goes something like

If the Universe began 13.7 billion years ago, when the distance between any pair of points was zero, how can anything be more than 13.7 billion light years away?

The answer is the difference between local motions and global motions. Here's the response I posted

An excellent question, and one which may not make sense to start
with. We know from special relativity, nothing can travel faster than
light (recent neutrino claims excepted). But in reality, special
relativity says that nothing can go faster than the speed of light
**locally**, so in a small box, if I try and race an electron and a
photon across the box, the photon will win.

With the expanding universe, the question we are asking is a little
different. We are asking how fast something is moving "over there",
rather than locally. It turns out that, if you crank the handle of
general relativity, that something over there can be moving faster than
the speed of light here. But anyone in the universe who does the local
test on the speed of light, by racing photons and electrons, will always
find that the photons will win.
If you think about it, what it means that, relative to the speed of
light here, light out there is moving faster than the speed of light.

This is a very important point. It seems that everyone takes the statement from special relativity, namely that you can't travel fast than light, and then tries to apply it into a global picture. But that is not correct.

One key feature of the curved space-time of general relativity is that you map any patch into the flat space-time coordinates of special relativity, where you only need to worry about the physics of special relativity (and gravity vanishes). At this point, all massive objects sit within their future light-cones - which basically means their local motion is less than the speed of light.

But there is no simple way to compare a patch here to a patch there, and talking about how fast something is moving "over there" really does not have a unique answer in relativity. It depends on the coordinates you choose to us (and if something depends on coordinates, it ain't physically observable).

Here's an excellent example (taken from Tamara Davis's website).

The dotted lines are are the motions of objects. In the top one, in "physical" distance, the more distance objects are very "tilted over" and are moving faster than the speed of light locally. But then again, light out there is moving fast than the speed of light locally.

Moving down the pictures, the bottom one is in comoving coordinates, and now distant objects are stationary with respect to us. How fast a distant something is moving with respect to us depends on which coordinates you choose.

It's actually messier than that. I can chose to mix up time and space into new coordinates, and this demonstrates that superluminal verses subluminal motions get even more confusing. But I won't write about it here, but let you have some reading.

A straight-forward interpretation of standard
Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) cosmologies is that objects move
apart due to the expansion of space, and that sufficiently distant galaxies
must be receding at velocities exceeding the speed of light. Recently, however,
it has been suggested that a simple transformation into conformal coordinates
can remove superluminal recession velocities, and hence the concept of the
expansion of space should be abandoned. This work demonstrates that such
conformal transformations do not eliminate superluminal recession velocities
for open or flat matter-only FRLW cosmologies, and all possess superluminal
expansion. Hence, the attack on the concept of the expansion of space based on
this is poorly founded. This work concludes by emphasizing that the expansion
of space is perfectly valid in the general relativistic framework, however,
asking the question of whether space really expands is a futile exercise.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Proton: a life story by Geraint F. Lewis1035 years: I’ve lived a long and eventful life, but I
know that death is almost upon me. Around me, my kind are slowly melting into
the darkness that is now the universe, and my time will eventually come. I’ve lived a long and
eventful life…

10-43 seconds: A time of unbelievable light, unbelievable
heat! I don’t remember the time before I was born, but I was there,
disembodied, ethereal, part of the swirling, roaring fires of the universe coming
in to being. But the universe cooled. From the featureless
inferno, its character crystalized into a seething sea of particles and forces.
Electrons and quarks tore about, smashing and crashing into photons and
neutrinos. The universe continued to cool. 1 second: The intensity of the heat steadily died away, and I was born. In
truth, there was no precise moment of my birth, but as the universe cooled my
innards, free quarks, bound together, and I was suddenly there! A proton! But my existence seemed fleet…

I hate starting every blog post with an apology as I have been busy, but I have. But I have. Teaching Electromagnetism to our first year class, computational physics using MatLab, and six smart talented students to wrangle, takes up a lot of time.

But I continue to try and learn a new thing every day! And so here's a short summary of what I've been doing recently.

There's no secret I love maths. I'm not skilled enough to be a mathematician, but I am an avid user. One of the things I love about maths is its shock value. What, I hear you say, shock? Yes, shock.

I remember when I discovered that trigonometric functions can be written as infinite series, and finding you can calculate these series numerically on a computer by adding the terms together, getting more and more accurate as we add higher terms.

And then there is Fourier Series! The fact that you can add these trigonometric functions together, appropriately weighted, to make other functions, functions that look …

A little look down the comments tho, and we see several claims that what Derek says is not correct. Here's a little excerpt
Well, as a cosmologist, I was surprised to read that the Hubble Sphere is an "outdated concept" having seen it used in a professional meeting last week. But let's take a look at the other claims that are made by "fullyawakened" - I must admit they have the lead on me as I am partiallyjetlagged at the moment. As ever, I am going to steal Tamara Davis's standard cosmological picture in a few different sets of coordinates to do this. I've explained these before, but the top one has distance as we know it along the x-axis, and time as we experience it up the y-axis.

"Our observable Universe is getting smaller" is simply wrong. Let's look at the bottom figure, which is i…